[statecom-discuss] (different plans and strategies...)

[Ron Francis]

I have no idea what the statecom "strategy" sessions are all about especially because the word strategy is so multi-faceted that I really think that sometimes it becomes meaningless as a word.   However I think that "strategizing" which to me is synonymous with "thinking out long term plans to achieve some objective" is always a good thing to do.  

As you know I love strategic plans, have executed several, and encourage it at all levels, and I plan to participate where feasible in any and all discussions.

I hope the strategic planning is successful and I'll try to contribute to its success.  By the way, when are the strategy sessions and what is the agenda ?

My main point in this discussion, however, is that any particular attempt at "strategizing" shouldn't be seen as something that prevents other plans from going forward.   A lot of us have already strategizing and have been doing it for some time and have some plans and ideas worked out.  To think that because the almighty statecom called a strategy session that the other strategic thinking and planning should stop is inconsistent with our value of decentralization.

For example, suppose a person, let's call that person strategist A, decided that we should only do local organizing for 4 years using a the democratic outreach methods specified in our bylaws and nothing else.   Should Strategist A be discouraged from doing that ?  For all we know it could catch fire.   Instead of pressuring strategist A from not working on that, because it has to fit in with some other strategy ideas is potentially counterproductive and might even slow down strategist A.

Consider next strategist B.  Strategist B says that we should start now and work for a statewide ballot question and wants to pull people together to see if there is interest.   Should we discourage strategist B ?

How about strategist C.  She thinks that we should put 90% of our energy into locating candidates Maine-style.  If she has a plan to assembles a team to call 1000 GRPs to encourage people to run, then should that be discouraged ?  For all we know she might hit a nerve and be wildly successful.

Strategist D says that we should work on the Secretary of State race in 2010 and start doing work on issues that the Secretary of State office would focus on, so that we build for three years and make a decent showing or win.  D believes that one successful statewide run is the way to mobilize people.  Who are we to say that D is wrong ? 

If A, B, C, or D can assemble enough people to execute her/his plan than she/he should go for it. 

Good ideas attract people and multiply bringing in new people.  You don't have to get everyone on board with one plan to get things done.  What is needed is a good plan.  An example:

In my living room three years ago a small group of us strategized about grassroots organizing for fundamental human rights for Palestinans.  We sent "the shot heard round the world" according to one newspaper, when 8 Somerville politicians co-sponsored our resolution, and you know about our ballot question results in 2006 plus the volunteer strength of SDP.  We were able to build SDP's strength because the plan was a good plan.

At the same time, three years ago, a group called the Greater Boston Intiaitve for Palestine Peace Network pulled together people from about 8 groups, plus individuals working on Palestine, in order to came up with a strategy for the groups to work on.  That group folded in about 6 months. (This is not to say that braod strategizing won't always work.... but it is to say that sometimes a small group with a good plan can achieve results.

We need to experiment with new ideas (hypotheses), document the characteristics of the experiments, learn best practices (conclusions) and then move forward to improve them.  I know this sounds scientific but my training is as an experimental physicist and I use my understanding of the scientific method to help my organizing.
 
Ron

Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote: Well, Ron, maybe we are almost there. But as long as you go on and on
about statecom, you still haven't gotten the concept of the strategy
committee, despite my multiple tries at clarifying its mission and
describing its broad base.

You haven't yet acknowledged that this effort is meant to reach and
include those very non-statecom people that you say are "ready to do
some serious planning." The other activities you mention -- the
platform, the party brochure, etc. -- will all benefit greatly from
carrying a consistent message that reflects the best thinking and
input of as many segments of the party as we can reach and embrace.

Once again, your email set up a straw man (first it was the strategy
committee and now it's statecom) whose role you describe inaccurately
and then proceed to "educate" or "enlighten" or tear down. I'd like to
think we've reached a plateau of some understanding as a result of
these emails. It would be encouraging if you could describe accurately
what the strategy committee will do, how it will proceed, and in what
ways it could fulfill your own goals for the party.

So far that has not happened which gives me reason to be concerned
that you might misinform others as you proceed with your own plans. In
that case, you could do yourself as well as the strategy committee a
disservice by shutting yourself and others off from a broader base of
action.

Merelice


On 2/16/07, Ron Francis  wrote:
> I do plan to participate and I think teh people discussing Local Ballots 2008 will most likely bring something to alny and all strategy discussions... why not ?
>
>   In the meantime plannign goes forward.  It will probably take two months of research and planning to begin to execute this plan and we needed to get started yesterday !
>
>   We need to understand that we as statecom, are only a small subset of a 10,000 member party, and we  do not control the members.  We control the shared state-level resources and that is about it.
>
>   already there are 6 non-statecom people who have responded.  That's great but it also shows that there are people out there who are nonstatecom people who are ready to do some serious planning.
>
>   If 100 people are interested in dong this plan then it will probably get done with or without staecom and that is the way our party should operate.  Working with any subset of the party is optional and not compulsory; give some space for people who aren't interested in the map that you want to follow.  There are several roads to the promise land.
>
>   There is no need to stop planning and organizing becuase a certain subset is interested in stalking strategy.  We've been talking strategy in membership committee for two years.
>
>   Should we also stop other strategic efforts like making a platform or updating our brochure.  Everything we do has strategic implications and there is counterproductive to suggest that people should not be planning just because one subset of teh party called a strategy meeting.
>
>   Mike is right.  Let's let 100 flowers bloom adn provide fertile grond as well.  I'll see you at some strategy meetings and hope you participate in Sundays' phone conference.
>
>   Also would appreciate feedback on Local Ballots 2008 if you cannot make the phonecall.  Help us mold a good plan to give teh plan the highest chance of being accepted by as many people as possible, statecommers or not.  Lift every voice.
>
>   The challenge is to craft a fundamentsl social change ballot question !  like we did in Somerivlle.
>
>   It's very encouraging to hear that people want to get moving.
>
>   Ron
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss